Applications

Print this page

Three Financial and Socio-Economic Assessments for PRT

In 2004, prior to the commencement of the Heathrow Project, an assessment of the financial and socio-economic impact of three proposed PRT systems was completed by Phil Bly of the Philip Bly Consultancy, and Richard Teychenne of ATS Ltd, with the results presented at the European Transport Forum of that year. The full paper and corresponding powerpoint presentation can be found in the links on the right; the content below is taken from both.

Note: The airport assessment is based on an alternative phase 1 network at Heathrow considered by ATS and BAA, which ran to the central terminal area rather than to Terminal 5, and which will now form part of the future ULTra network expansion.

The Case Studies

The assessments are of three very different applications of ULTra:

Assessment Approach

In each of the three cases the general approach was similar, and is summarised below:

  1. Determine the objectives: Establish what was expected from the PRT system (through a discussion with the area's authorities), to identify major centres of activity and potential demand.
  2. Design a suitable network: On the basis of what was learnt in i), potential routes were identified and the physical practicality of constructing guideways and stations examined.
  3. Data Collection: Data was collected on current travel patterns to provide the basis for demand estimates for the PRT network.
  4. Demand Estimation: For Heathrow this was straightforward, since car park use and staff numbers, and their likely future trends, were known, and use of PRT was part of the car parking package. Demand for the Cardiff and Corby systems was estimated on the basis of conventional logit mode split modelling.
  5. Determine fleet size requirements: The number of PRT vehicles needed was estimated on the basis of peak demand, and a simulation of the control system for the PRT network was used to ensure that capacity was adequate, network flows could be properly managed, and to estimate mean waiting times and travel times.
  6. System Costing: The PRT system was costed, with contingencies of 20% added to the base costs.
  7. Conduct financial and socio-economic appraisals: On the basis of the estimated costs and demand, detailed financial and socio-economic appraisals have been made. These analyses are consistent with DfT’s New Approach to Transport Appraisal (NATA) and the tabulated results given in this paper are selections from those original analyses.

Study Summaries & Details

For summaries of the three case study assessments, see the Cardiff, Corby, and London Heathrow CTA pages.

For the more detailed analysis, see the Cardiff, Corby, and London Heathrow CTA study assessment pages, or download the full "Three Financial and Socio-Economic Assessments of a Personal Rapid Transit System" paper.

Conclusions

The three case studies reported here involve very different applications of PRT. In the case of Cardiff and Corby, where passenger revenue is compared with capital and operating costs, ULTra easily covers its operating costs and is able to make a contribution to the capital costs which is close to the 6% public investment discount rate. This performance in purely financial terms is substantially better than has been obtained from conventional public transport systems, which sometimes fail to cover the operating costs, and where subsidy is invariably required for the capital costs. The social benefits in terms of reduced travel times and better levels of service (with negligible waiting times), the attraction of substantial numbers of people from car travel, with the consequent reductions in road congestion, accidents and energy use, and reduced pollution and noise, all make a very robust socio-economic case for PRT. In the case of LHR, where PRT replaces the existing shuttle buses and there is no allocated revenue, savings in operating costs and the improved levels of passenger service, together with the flexibility and modern image of the system, make it attractive for an airport local transport system. Table 4 summarises the findings for the three applications, and includes the CBP estimates for LRT in Corby.

Summary of the case study assessments

Clearly PRT has progressed from being a high-tech dream in the early 1970’s to become a practical, and surprisingly economical, transport system for the twenty-first century. The ULTra system is predicted to be cheaper and better than conventional public transport, and the infrastructure costs have been checked as far as possible and seem conservative. The passenger-carrying prototype vehicle has been operating for a year now without problems.

Nevertheless, despite the robust financial and economic case which can be made for PRT, the adoption of any innovative system carries risk, in that there is no existing system on which to base experience. The Cardiff system was not intended as merely a case-study, but as a working system to be installed in the city. It has still not been installed because commissioning has become embroiled in difficulties connected with European regulations for competitive purchase, and with problems of funding and decision-making between Cardiff County Council and the National Welsh Assembly. Several other Local Authorities are interested in installing it in their towns, and have formed a PRT Interest Group which now has 15 members. Understandably, there are plenty of interested potential purchasers, but they would all rather be second than first. The Interest Group sees the need to set up a joint pilot project to demonstrate the practicality of the system in an urban context.

It seems likely that the first application will be in an airport, where the attractions are obvious. Several are interested. This would certainly be easier than an urban installation, for the system would operate in a secure environment, and potential problems of vandalism would be less. If the system can do what it promises, however, it seems likely that once it can be demonstrated in an airport environment, an urban public transport application will rapidly follow.

References

  • Colin Buchanan and Partners (2002) Corby Rapid transit Feasibility Study. Report to Bee Bee Developments. Unpublished Report April 2002.
  • EDICT (2004) Site Assessment Report. EDICT Project Deliverable 6 (Project No. EVK4-CT-2001-00058) April 2004 (European Commission DG Research, Brussels)
  • Lowson M V (2002) Sustainable Personal Transport. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Municipal Engineer 151 March 2002 pp 73-82
  • Ove Arup and Partners, 2002 Cardiff ULTra – Stated Preference. Unpublished Report (ATS, Bristol)